Nuclear plant construction has been discussed in Alberta, but there are many scientists who have concerns about nuclear safety. Sheep farmer from Ontario Eugene Bourgeois visited the Smoky River region in early July to discuss his experience of living next to a nuclear plant. Bourgeois has been travelling Canada to get word out about health problems he and his family have suffered due to the nuclear plant near his home. “I saw stars,” he says explaining the times he was caught in a sour gas leak in 1985 and in 1988. “I couldn’t put two words together.” A university expert determined that the result of exposure to toxic fumes, which could be because of hydrogen sulphide emissions from the plant. Bourgeois says that he has never fully regained his health. He also says his sheep flock frequently lost a third of its lambs each spring. Sometimes the sheep went blind. Nuclear energy could pose a threat to the health of people, and contamination of land. Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility president Dr. Gordon Edwards agrees with many of Bourgeois’ concerns of nuclear energy. He is among the people who discuss the negative aspects of using nuclear energy. “Nuclear energy is an important issue for Albertans to consider,” says Edwards. “No nuclear reactors have been ordered or built in North America for 30 years.” Edwards explains that this was until recent talks of a reactor being built in northern Alberta were initiated. “In a way, in Alberta, what’s happening is a little bit of a time warp,” he explains. “They seem to be back in the 50s when nuclear power was being presented as a clean, safe alternative. When in fact problems keep mounting up in the nuclear domain.” In the ’70s, eastern Canada and United States saw the benefits of nuclear energy, as an energy that was abundant, and would readily be available. However; there was little thought and understanding about the radioactive waste and problems associated with nuclear power. “Back east, 22 reactors are all suffering from deterioration which is severe, requiring extensive repairs,” explains Edwards, who adds the repairs total billions of dollars per plant, and the costs accrued every day. He says that four reactors were shut down in 1997 in Ontario. Six years later, the province wanted to restart them. The expected cost was $800 million per plant to restart in six months. One and a half years later, the plant was started for $1.5 billion. “At that point there was an inquiry to see if a plant could be restarted at under $500 million. Another plant was started for just over $1 billion. The last two plants were written off, and the two that were restarted are not working well.” Edwards explains when Ontario had a power shortage, reactors were shut down because they had other problems. To this day, he says that in the east they’re not sure if reactors will be able to function properly even when refurbished. He says Alberta government should see if they can get the plants working in the east before investing billions of dollars in nuclear energy. According to Edwards, in 2005 nuclear power accounted for 16 per cent of electricity supplied (2.7 per cent of total energy). If nuclear energy is invested in for the next quarter century, it will account for 18 percent of electricity supplied or just 3.0 per cent of total energy. “Nuclear energy might be one possible contributor to global warming elimination, but it is not a solution.” Renewable energy accounted for 18 per cent of electricity in 2005, and has a projected total electricity supply in 2030 of almost double of nuclear energy at 30 to 35 per cent of the share. Germany phased out nuclear power 10 years ago. Built 20,000 megawatts of wind power instead in 10 years. Canadian nuclear industry didn’t produce 15,000 over 25 years. “With wind power energy, you don’t have to wait to reap benefits.” (Watch for more on nuclear energy in the next edition of Spotlight).